Jared Kushner’s corruption is following him everywhere.
Donald Trump’s son-in-law and senioradviser Jared Kushner he did a lot ofdefending the president on a lot ofdifferent topics on an interview withAxios on HBO so let’s get right into itbecause I want to show you what happenedwhen Kushner is asked whether he hasseen Trump do anything racist or bigotedtake a look so for the answer is noabsolutely notyou can’t not be a racist for 69 yearsthen run for president be a racist andwhat I’ll say is that when a lot of theDemocrats call the president a racist Ithink they’re doing a disservice topeople who suffer because of real racismin this country I’m so imagine you havethe same reaction everyone else didwatching that luckily Jonathan Swan theinterviewer in this he had a pretty goodfollow-up take a look was birtherismracist um look I wasn’t really involvedin that I know you wouldn’t mm-hmm wasit racist like I said I wasn’t involvedin that I know you won mm-hmm was itracist um look I know who the presidentis and I have not seen anything in himthat is racist so again I was notinvolved in that did you wish he didn’tdo that like I said I was not involvedin that that was a long time ago allright so that’s his answer to thefollow-up I forget who did it my name isJohn King who was like there was anormal interview going on and then rightafter this series of questions beganJared forgot how to speak like how tospeak in complete sentences so hard tolie I mean it is obviously affecting himJared who I didn’t think was capable ofhuman emotions I’m not sure I thought hewas capable of hunger maybe thirst okayfear okay I guess that might have beenthe driving factor there but like that Ijust break down every single thing aboutwhat happened there first he says thatthe president was not racist for 69years nice or however long it was rightand then suddenly is racist right butbut he has been raisedrefusing to cop to that so was thatracist I wasn’t a part of this nobodyasked you you just claimed to knoweverything about this man for the past69 years yeah so were you there were younow every single day absolutely he’sthat kind of guy and then he says itdoes a disservice to people who havesuffered from actual racism which islike an attempt at the kind of argumentsthat conservatives try to make in orderto just confuse people it’s like using atriple negative they’re just like I haveno idea what you’re sayingright but you seemed confident as yousaid it but when you want to talk aboutpeople who were actual victims of racismhow about all the people that weren’tallowed to move into Trump buildingsbecause he had racist tenant policiesabsolutely ridiculous I guess I don’tknow how else his son-in-law is supposedto answer a yes or no question thateveryone knows but we have video proofthere are federal documents from of whatyou’re talking about there’s a full-pagead in The New York Times in 1989 like wehave actual proof of his racism there’sa video of him on the campaign trail youknow so there’s actual proof but I guessI can’t imagine his son-in-law answeringit but any other way wouldn’t it begreat if Jared was like yes thank youfinally yes he’s so racist right exactlyand then he went to dinner with GeorgeConwayit’s just with that relationship Iwonder how Trump can be okay with hisdaughter marrying such a wiener suchlike a limp wiener like that’s what itis and the answer is probably uh he’sfrom a big real estate family who didbetter than mine but he’s never gonnachallenge me as the dominant figure inmy daughter’s lifegreat that’s I think this is the firsttime I’ve really been able to figure outwhat that relationship is like and allhis confidence in Jared Jared might justbe like an okay project manager butnever anything else and what we’ve seenover and over again is that you’re okayuntil you’re not he would Trump yeah sowho knows what the future holdsyeah I don’t know but I wouldn’t skipahead a little bit and talk about Russiaokay okay because uh he was also askedabout that infamous Rushmeeting and like just you know straightup a flick why didn’t you report this tothe FBI why did you go why and there wasa bit of a back-and-forth it’s a I wantto show you here so the question fromswan is does it not set off some alarmbells when you see an email that theRussian government wants to help thecampaign Kushner says the email I got onmy iPhone said show up at 4:00 I didn’tscroll down so on reminds him that ithad Russia in the subject line and thenstill no copping to the reality of thesituation is right there you knew whatthe meeting was gonna be about and so weasked him if this happened again wouldyou report it to the FBI take a look athis answer call the FBI happen again Idon’t know it’s hard to do hypotheticalsbut the the reality is is that we werenot given anything that was salaciousthis wouldn’t be hard for me to dohypotheticals that is any precisehypothetical where you say yes I wouldbecause you’re hiding behind thisconcept that you don’t know the rulesright and you’re just new to this butthe hypothetical answer should be Iwould report it to the FBI it’s theeasiest thing to do unless youconsistently do get invites like thisand just don’t want to cop to that factright you’re right like you know thatit’ll happen again and you you know thatyou won’t report it to the FBI otherwiselike I don’t see how this isn’t sayingyes immediately isn’t a good look forthe administration say yes of course wewould because we didn’t know what wasgoing on we had nothing to do with thatso of course we would but he doesn’twant to answer any questions whatsoeverpursue I mean I just that moment whenthey asked about the racismyeah just like what what would you dowhat I was not involved in that so youyou can’t make an assessment ofbirtherism or any racist act whether itwas racist whether you wanted it tohappen whether you endorsed it becauseyou weren’t involved in it first of allthat’s like the tacit acknowledgementand crappiness that allows racism topersist because people aren’t able tojust say oh no that was bad it wasabsolutely races it was absolutionabsolutely racially motivated and and heshould just cop to thatthank you for watching this clip fromthe damage report for more content fromthe show and access the TYT Networkmembers-only exclusives go to ty-t-dot-com / Brooke wait no it’s twhitey dot-com / John go to t whiteycalm / John to sign up
BERN, Switzerland — Secretary of State Mike Pompeo is on a weeklong trip to Europe where he is raising sensitive issues with national leaders — from Iranian missiles to Chinese technology to the economic collapse of Venezuela — but the most colorful conversations could take place this weekend out of public earshot in a secretive conclave at a Swiss lakeside resort.
In Montreux, on the eastern shore of Lake Geneva, political and business leaders from Western nations are gathering for the 67th Bilderberg Meeting, an annual forum in which participants agree not to reveal exactly what was said or who said it. It is a shadow version of Davos, the elite annual winter conference in the Swiss Alps that President Trump has attended once but has also criticized.
The State Department has not even put the Bilderberg Meeting on Mr. Pompeo’s public schedule, though a senior official confirmed he was attending Saturday.
.. No doubt those culinary treats will be on hand at venues in Montreux, to fuel discussion on 11 central topics now hotly debated in countries around the globe:
- the future of capitalism,
- the weaponization of social media,
- artificial intelligence,
- Russia and so on.
Jared Kushner, Mr. Trump’s son-in-law and Middle East adviser, is another top administration official planning to attend. The 130 or so participants also include King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands; Stacey Abrams, the American politician; Henry Kissinger, the former senior American foreign policy official; Eric Schmidt, the former chief executive of Google; and David H. Petraeus, the retired general. Some top bank executives are on the list, too.
On at least one subject, climate change, many of the participants are expected to have radically different views than Mr. Pompeo. In early May, the American secretary, speaking at a meeting of the Arctic Council in Finland, praised the changes caused by the melting of ice in the Arctic Circle.
“Steady reductions in sea ice are opening new passageways and new opportunities for trade,” Mr. Pompeo said, while noting the abundance of undiscovered oil and gas, uranium, rare-earth minerals, coal, diamonds and fisheries in the Arctic.
What Mr. Pompeo, Mr. Kushner and the other Bilderberg attendees actually say to each other will be a mystery to most of the public, thanks to the meeting’s use of the Chatham House Rule, which states that although attendees can tell the public what was discussed, generally, participants must not reveal who said what.
It’s a stretch to place the names of Jared Kushner and Henry Cabot Lodge in the same sentence; it’s difficult even to imagine that Lodge, the aristocratic Massachusetts senator who dominated the nation’s immigration debate from the 1890s into the 1920s, would give Kushner the time of day. But Kushner’s new immigration plan, aimed at reducing immigration from specific nations through the virtual elimination of what he and others have disparaged as “chain migration,” and the simultaneous valorization of the highly educated, is simply a version of a blatantly discriminatory effort Lodge initiated more than a century ago.
A man of uncommon refinement and even greater arrogance, Lodge was a Harvard PhD., the erudite author of more than a dozen books and, in many ways, the archetype of the Boston Brahmin of a century ago. His friend Thomas B. Reed, speaker of the House in the closing years of the 19th century, said Lodge arose from “thin soil, highly cultivated.” Lodge himself celebrated his fellow Brahmins for “their intense belief in themselves, their race, and their traditions.” His idea of the west, said another colleague, was Pittsfield, Mass. Look at John Singer Sargent’s remarkable likeness of the young Lodge that hangs in the National Portrait Gallery. You almost feel you are despoiling him by your very presence.
As well you might have been, if you were Italian, or Greek, or a Russian Jew or from any of the other national groups he had in mind in 1895, when he rose on the Senate floor to introduce the first restrictive immigration bill aimed at Eastern and Southern Europeans. The widening streams of emigres pouring out of the impoverished lands between the Baltic and the Mediterranean had broadened to flood stage, and Lodge determined that the best way to keep them out was to make them submit to a literacy test.
Aware of the scant educational opportunities in most of these countries, he told his fellow senators that his bill “will bear most heavily upon the Italians, Russians, Poles, Hungarians, and Asiatics, and very lightly, or not at all, upon English-speaking emigrants.” And, he argued, why should it be otherwise? “The races most affected” by his test, he explained, were those “with which the English-speaking people have never hitherto assimilated, and are alien to the great body of the people of the United States.”
Lodge’s talk was a hit. His closest friend, Theodore Roosevelt — at the time the New York City police commissioner — called it “an A-1 speech,” which pleased Lodge greatly. He was probably even more delighted with the reaction of the “Russian-Nihilistic Club” of Chicago, which burned him in effigy.
Eagerly endorsing the House version of the bill, Lodge’s Massachusetts colleague Rep. Elijah A. Morse declared himself delighted to see that it would exclude “undesirable immigration” from “southern Europe, from Russia, from Italy, and from Greece” — people, he said, who brought to the United States little else than “an alimentary canal and an appetite.”
Lodge’s literacy test bill passed with ease. But on President Grover Cleveland’s very last day in office, he struck it down with a veto, and there were not enough votes in the Senate to override.
Over the next 20 years, Lodge and his colleagues tried again and again, introducing a version of the literacy test into nearly every Congress. Three times it was approved by both chambers; three times it was struck down by veto. Only with anti-European fervor spiking on the brink of World War I, and new theories of “racial eugenics” shaping public debate, was it finally enacted over President Woodrow Wilson’s second veto, in 1917.
But for the anti-immigrationists, the new law was too little too late, and rendered ineffective by a shapely irony: Its two-decade presence on the congressional front burner had encouraged the education of the very people he wished to keep out. The Immigration Restriction League executive committee reported the baleful news that the Italian government was “spending millions on their schools in the last few months in view of the pending bill.” An IRL official wrote, “It is probable that primary schools will be presently established in many parts of Europe,” and consequently the newly enacted literacy test “is likely to diminish in value as a means of restriction as time goes on.”
A few years later, the xenophobes finally got what they wanted when Congress enacted the Immigration Act of 1924, which didn’t mess with half-measures: It slashed immigration by means of brutal quotas aimed at precisely those countries Lodge had singled out nearly three decades earlier. Where once more than 220,000 Italians arrived each year, the number was reduced by the new quota to fewer than 6,500. In 1921, the lands comprising most of the former Russian Empire had sent nearly 190,000 emigrants to the United States; the 1924 law accommodated exactly 7,346.
For the next 41 years, this brutally exclusionary act remained in place, shaping the composition of the nation, and dooming thousands — if not millions — to deprivation and death. When it was finally revoked by Congress in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the new law on Liberty Island, in the shadow of the great statue that had been designed to welcome the unwanted. Had he chosen to give a history of what the 1924 act had been intended to do, Johnson might have invoked the words that Cleveland used in his veto message back in 1897: The literacy test,Cleveland had said, was “the pretext for exclusion.”
I don’t think Lodge would have disagreed, nor, if he’s being honest with himself, would Kushner. A plan that sets up “educational standards” as the primary benchmark for immigration isn’t likely to certify too many people fleeing from, say, Honduras or Yemen. Reeling in the numbers of immigrants granted priority to reunite with family members already here will similarly disadvantage much of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. Jared Kushner — and Stephen Miller and President Trump — likely know very little about Henry Cabot Lodge. But he would be proud of them.